Canadian Maps and Graphics

[lio45]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

The watershed argument isn't remotely an arbitrary British ruling.

It's the common sense that the whole world lives under.

It's "common sense" that a place like Robsart, Saskatchewan (within the Gulf of Mexico watershed) should be governed not from Regina, but from New Orleans?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Watersheds isn't a slippery slope it's almost the literal definition of something that can't be made slippery.

What I called "slippery slope" wasn't your watershed argument, it was your current occupation argument.

"It was totally reasonable to give Northern Maine to the USA, because the people currently living there are 100% Americans and 0% Canadians" is a slippery slope argument. It encourages "bad actors" to steal land from weaker neighbors with impunity, all they have to do is occupy it for a while after illegally seizing it and everyone else will leave them alone and legitimize their annexation.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's "common sense" that a place like Robsart, Saskatchewan (within the Gulf of Mexico watershed) should be governed not from Regina, but from New Orleans?

If the elevation differences were stronger than they actually are without question.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

What I called "slippery slope" wasn't your watershed argument, it was your current occupation argument.

"It was totally reasonable to give Northern Maine to the USA, because the people currently living there are 100% Americans and 0% Canadians" is a slippery slope argument. It encourages "bad actors" to steal land from weaker neighbors with impunity, all they have to do is occupy it for a while after illegally seizing it and everyone else will leave them alone and legitimize their annexation.

Well that is more or less exactly how the world works.

I'm not big on getting into age old territorial disputes based on past claims.

It's a slippery slope that regularly leads to conflict and bloodshed.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

If the elevation differences were stronger than they actually are without question.

Back in an era when the only "roads" were the rivers, okay, maybe, but not anymore.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

One good thing about using watersheds as a boundary is that in a part of the world where hydro electric power is so important, if you create a new reservoir, as least you can be assured that you won't accidentally flood any of your neighbours territory.

That's actually becoming a massive problem in Africa. Specifically the Nile river.

When your borders are not defined by watershed you've really screwed up.

FYI in some hippy dippy 1 world government scenario I think all geographical subdivisions should be defined by watersheds and rivers.

Unironically I think it's sad that Canada isn't better defined by it's watersheds.

The St Lawrence and Hudson Bay are very much Canada.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Well that is more or less exactly how the world works.

I'm not big on getting into age old territorial disputes based on past claims.

It's a slippery slope that regularly leads to conflict and bloodshed.

One could see this the other way: if we make it so easy to legitimize a new border configuration (all you have to do is a bit of ethnic cleansing and then put your own people there and voilà, irreversible land acquisition in the eyes of the international community), we're making it easier to have conflict and bloodshed.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

Back in an era when the only "roads" were the rivers, okay, maybe, but not anymore.

So what should they be based on?

Specifically in this case?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

What I called "slippery slope" wasn't your watershed argument, it was your current occupation argument.

"It was totally reasonable to give Northern Maine to the USA, because the people currently living there are 100% Americans and 0% Canadians" is a slippery slope argument. It encourages "bad actors" to steal land from weaker neighbors with impunity, all they have to do is occupy it for a while after illegally seizing it and everyone else will leave them alone and legitimize their annexation.

Actually about 80-90% of people in northern Maine are descendants of francophone Canadians.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

When your borders are not defined by watershed you've really screwed up.

FYI in some hippy dippy 1 world government scenario I think all geographical subdivisions should be defined by watersheds and rivers.

Unironically I think it's sad that Canada isn't better defined by it's watersheds.

The St Lawrence and Hudson Bay are very much Canada.

So the Alberta rancher whose lands are drained by a river that goes to the Gulf of Mexico and the Alberta rancher right next door whose lands are drained by a river that goes to the Hudson Bay, respectively are culturally closer to a Mexican from Veracruz and an Inuit from Nunavut, than to each other?

You're placing way too much importance on watersheds.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

So what should they be based on?

Specifically in this case?

The 1927 decision? IMO on the very simple and elegant following criterion: Newfoundland to Newfoundlanders, the Canadian Mainland to Mainland Canadians.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

One could see this the other way: if we make it so easy to legitimize a new border configuration (all you have to do is a bit of ethnic cleansing and then put your own people there and voilà, irreversible land acquisition in the eyes of the international community), we're making it easier to have conflict and bloodshed.

Well this is exactly why I'd be very cautious with immigration policy.

And be against anyone going on the ethnic cleansing bandwagon.

Keeping in mind, that most ethnic cleansing is a product of people trying to make counter claims against another nations historic territories.

This is reason 101 why I'm so hostile to communism-socialism eu type situations.

A lot of the problems in Eastern Europe are caused by no clear and appropriate claims to a region.


The divisions of the Soviet Union have almost zero legitimacy to most people.

It's part of why Putin has so much support.

It's also why central Europe ended up in WW2, and why Yugoslavia ended up in genocide.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Actually about 80-90% of people in northern Maine are descendants of francophone Canadians.

But they're American citizens nowadays. Therefore, Northern Maine should belong to the USA.

It's pretty circular logic... though, sure, I admit that it's not unreasonable for the current facts on the ground to also play a role in determining which lands should belong to whom.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

So the Alberta rancher whose lands are drained by a river that goes to the Gulf of Mexico and the Alberta rancher right next door whose lands are drained by a river that goes to the Hudson Bay, respectively are culturally closer to a Mexican from Veracruz and an Inuit from Nunavut, than to each other?

You're placing way too much importance on watersheds.

Or your confusing why watersheds are important.

The elevation difference across the great "plains" is exactly why it is irrelevant.

https://en-ca.topographic-map.com/ma...-and-Labrador/

The greater the difference between watersheds the better the border.

And in Labrador that difference is tremendous.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

The greater the difference between watersheds the better the border.

Well then that's because we're not talking about just watersheds anymore when you have high elevations. I agree that the borders between Italian, French and Germanic lands (the Alps) and between France and Spain, etc. are all pretty good places to put lines. The Rockies are a pretty damn logical western border for Prairie culture and a point to stop the lands administrated from Prairie provincial capitals. On the other side, it's BC.

(edit - and yes, using this argument, the Peace River area of BC should be run from Edmonton not Victoria.)



That's not just watersheds anymore, it's a massive physical barrier that is also a barrier to vegetation and fauna and the traditional movement of people and goods (and also, happens to divide watersheds, obviously).

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

The 1927 decision? IMO on the very simple and elegant following criterion: Newfoundland to Newfoundlanders, the Canadian Mainland to Mainland Canadians.

So you really think Labardor belongs to Quebec?

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

Well then that's because we're not talking about just watersheds anymore when you have high elevations. I agree that the borders between Italian, French and Germanic lands (the Alps) and between France and Spain, etc. are all pretty good places to put lines. The Rockies are a pretty damn logical western border for Prairie culture and a point to stop the lands administrated from Prairie provincial capitals. On the other side, it's BC.

That's not just watersheds anymore, it's a massive physical barrier that is also a barrier to vegetation and fauna and the traditional movement of people and goods (and also, happens to divide watersheds, obviously).

And the situation in Labrador is somehow different

Seems to be a much more extreme case, where the disputed territory was largely was and still is uninhabited.

I can't imagine the borders being any different in such a landmass.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

So you really think Labardor belongs to Quebec?

I actually have no strong opinion on this question, beyond the basic 1) the 1927 decision was obviously biased and 2) we shouldn't feel bad for milking Interior Labrador resources that are well connected to Quebec's rail/power/road networks while not really well connected to Newfoundland's.

If you want to bring electricity to the Yankees from Labrador, it's unavoidable that you guys will have to go through some middlemen. Deal with it

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by lio45

I actually have no strong opinion on this question, beyond the basic 1) the 1927 decision was obviously biased and 2) we shouldn't feel bad for milking Interior Labrador resources that are well connected to Quebec's rail/power/road networks while not really well connected to Newfoundland's.

Don't feel bad about milking newfoundland's resources if you want to feel bad apologize to Alberta.

Regardless I don't get how the watersheds isn't exactly the perfect way to draw up borders in an unpopulated contested territory.

And yes that is exactly what I would of done in Western Canada, instead of some imaginary crooked line.

The argument that you've pinched off our access to the rest of the continent isn't really helping your case either.

It's actually my single biggest gripe with Quebec/BC/Whatever.

IF you want transfer payments you shouldn't be able to obstruct another provinces economy.

Originally Posted by lio45

If you want to bring electricity to the Yankees from Labrador, it's unavoidable that you guys will have to go through some middlemen. Deal with it

If I had my way those resources would just sit there. It never gave newfoundland any economic benefit.

The large scale government run energy schemes is the primary reason I plan never to return to Newfoundland.

As far as I'm concerned these socialist schemes ruined my homeland.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

That doesn't explain Quebec's newfie shore.

It was also my understanding that the Timmons area was already mixed of french and english regardless of the territorial claims?

Timmins didn't exist when the ON/QC border was decided in our region.